My first dip into Tony Gatlif's filmography, and first impressions weren't so great. Admittedly, the plot outline didn't exactly float my boat: Roman Duris and Lubna Azabal play a couple of free spirited Parisian hipsters (shudder) who travel to Algeria on the hoof to trace their gypsy roots and 'discover themselves' (shudder). The main obstacle of enjoyment for me was that the central couple were so unappealing, and at times the film seemed little more than an advert for a student gap year. The early scenes in particular I found quite grating, as the cool and sexy pair lark around as if they have escaped from a Godard film.
Things pick up a little when the couple reach their destination, with some enjoyably authentic and emotional scenes with the locals. I understand this is Gatlif's speciality, and the sequences of gypsy life and ritual have an emotional resonance that is lacking in the first half. The climax is particularly memorable for its sheer energy and lack of neat self-discovery ending you might be expecting. I imagine personal enjoyment of the film as a whole will come down to your tolerance of the central duo. For me it was half a good film at least, and there is enough here to make me want to check out more films by the director.
Compared to other works by the director, not quite the disaster of 'Promise Me This', but far from the greatness of 'Black Cat, White Cat'. The one big failure is the central relationship of the Serbian engineer and his Bosnian hostage. Neither were particularly well developed characters, their relationship felt forced and unconvincing, and the actors had very little chemistry together. This became a big problem in the second half when they became the main focus of the story. That said, there was plenty to enjoy in the first half, with Kusturica's typically crowded shots, full of detail to discover on future viewings. There were some fun comic performances in the ensemble cast, though (once again) none were as well-drawn and memorable as the gypsies in 'Black Cat, White Cat'. On the whole I'd have to call this a disappointment.
This was my introduction to the work of Tarkovsky, a stunning film debut, a bona-fide masterpiece. Visually beautiful, with some incredibly haunting and dreamlike scenes across war-torn wastelands and flare-lit swamps. The war is never presented directly, just heard as an ever-present threat and seen only in its aftermath. The film is surprisingly pacy and accessible, with the directors name seemingly a byword for extremely long and impenatrable films (I am yet to see any of his later work). Definitely worth a watch for anyone interested in checking out more 'arty' cinema for the first time.
Baz Lurhman's cult classic and the last of his loosely linked 'Red Curtain Trilogy' (along with 'Strictly Ballroom' and 'Romeo +Juliet') 'Moulin Rouge' is an unashamedly camp, gaudy and exuberant attempt to revive the musical.
At the turn of the 19th century, hapless young writer; Christian (Ewan McGregor) seeks out a bohemian lifestyle in France: falls for stunning courtesan Satine (Nicole Kidman), works with Toulouse-Lautrec (John Leguizamo) and becomes embroiled in the sinister shenanigans of the titular Parisian brothel. Nicole Kidman, usually a tiresome and repetitive performer, breathes life into the enigmatic ecdysiast and makes Satine her most memorable character since Grace Stewart in 'The Others'.
OTT romantic melodrama at its best, 'Moulin Rouge' isn't quite as entertaining or inventive as 'Romeo + Juliet' but deserves a lot of credit as act of cinematic bravado; one that goes all out in a vibrant, dazzling display of energy and colour. Not a film you can watch very often, as it's a testament to style over substance and the kitschy décor / overacting begins to grate past the one hour mark, yet for what it is; 'Moulin Rouge' is a resounding success and one of the most original films of the last decade.
The Secret In Their Eyes won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film last year and in many ways it is a perfect example of world cinema embracing and enhancing Hollywood formula.
Ricardo Darin plays Benjamín Esposito, a retired Federal Judge, who has decided to write a novel based on a case from twenty years prior that he can't shake the memory of. To do so means visiting his old boss, Irene Menéndez Hastings (Soledad Villamil), who he happens to be in love with. Raking over the old details makes them both think about their old decisions and regrets. Esposito discovers new details about the case and those directly involved.
This is a marvellous screenplay from Eduardo Sacheri and Juan José Campanella that shames much of what we assume is typical film writing. It is at turns reflective and nostalgic, with just the right amount of sentimentality, but razor sharp too and it moves confidently between past and present with no sign-posting to the audience. It feels authentic and honest throughout, trusting the viewer to understand subtle reveals in characters that accentuate the point of title, through to outrageous moments and leaps of faith in the plot that are handled with a knowing wink. Well, that just betrays its origins; Spanish cinema often has a nutty edge! It recognises, as Hitchcock did, the inherent absurdity of many typical thriller plots and concentrates the real substance on the romance between the leads.
This is cinema as sleight of hand and is enormous fun, even while it threatens to break your heart. The key to its success is the terrific playful dialogue which is consistent and relaxed even while the plot mercilessly fluctuates in tone. You will frequently laugh out loud, even at mere banter or during a rather serious moment, but never underestimate this films heart. It has the rhythm of old fashioned Hollywood, with a modern, naturalistic edge and is performed beautifully by the superb cast who play their characters both young and old; and there is a distinction beyond clever make-up as the story is tinged with regret only possible with age. There may also be a political sub-text in there, but it passed me by; I'm a bit behind on Argentinian government policies! That such a broad and affecting story is so focused, light and watchable is testament to the powerful writing and perfectly judged performances.
Darin as Esposito and Villamil as Irene are particularly brilliant in their dual roles. They are charming as both young and idealistic, and as the older, regretful versions too. Argentinian comedian Guillermo Francella plays Esposito's drunken partner Sandoval, but don't assume he is a thin slapstick backup. He plays a character as layered as any other. If you excuse my ignorance, I suppose he might be a Spanish Robin Williams.
Director Juan José Campanella does an incredible job with the films complicated tone, but he makes it so smooth, enthusiastically embracing the screenplays more absurd moments and he bolsters others with ingenuity that never feels forced or manipulative. Inside the first ten minutes is a moment of such delicate beauty during one of those shifts that it almost took my breath away, and that wasn't the high-point. There's an astonishing five minute unbroken scene in a football stadium that will make your jaw drop, and the awful early flashback moment when Esposito remembers his first encounter of the crime scene is a similarly long take, yet a sombre one.
The Secret In Their Eyes is a magnificent achievement and highly deserving of its award. I can think of little to compare it with. "Political thriller" brings State of Play to mind, but it's far more accomplished. It shares more with The Constant Gardener, yet it's a lot more fun. It would definitely appeal to fans of the more heavily marketed The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Sadly, there isn't a Blu-Ray available to really take advantage of Félix Monti's golden photography, but the DVD is a fine substitute and is at a bargain price at the moment.
Directed by Peter Weir, the Dead Poets Society is an interesting Period Drama. The film is set in the 1950's at Welton Acadamy, a private senior boys school.
The headmaster, Mr. Nolan (Norman Lloyd) is uncontrolably, controlling the school with old traditions. A new English Professor, John Keeting (Robin Williams) inspires the students to a love of poetry and to think their own mind - complete contrast to the controlling Mr. Nolan.
Meanwhile, student, Neil Perry (Robert Sean Leonard) has re-discovered the Dead Poets Society, which inspiring, rule-hating, understanding Mr. Keeting used to be a part of when he attended Welton. At first, student, Todd Anderson (Ethan Hawke) was reluctant to join Neil and his friends in the Dead Poets Society but eventually he was persauded. So the classmates escape from the boarding school each night, go to the dark, damp cave and read poems.
The highlight of the film to me was when the students were in the cave and a few of them read out some poems. When Steven Meeks (Allelon Ruggiero) came to read out his, he turned it into a song. All of his class mates started whispering 'Meeks', drumming their torches with sticks, clapping, dancing and joining in with the song. I liked that part best because it made it more interesting, fun and it was like i was actually there. I can almost promise you that you would like to join in. In that scene the camera work, sound and lighting worked really well because in the cave it was pitch black apart from a few of the students torches. Their was no non-diegetic sound which made it more like you were a part of it and the camera work worked well because it was very simple - the camera stayed still and occasionally zoomed in a little, which helped to make you feel a part of it. The camera was mainly doing a medium shot, so you wern't too far away but not too close.
I do not think there were any scenes that didn't really work, i think they all flowed into each other well and made a great film.
Overall i think The Dead Poets Society is a family-friendly film and almost anyone will enjoy it. All the actors played their part well and the camera work was used effectively. There were funny parts all the way through but quite a few serious scenes in which small children may not enjoy as much. I would reccommend this film to every-body but be ready for a surprise at the end!
a must watch film in which SALT, played by angelina jolie, is on the run. its not normally the type of film i go for but i could easily watch it more than once!
After the outstanding sixth instalment in one of the most successful film franchises of all time, part one of the two-part finale is an underwhelming and overlong drag. Director David Yates strips away at the sparkling panache he gave Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince and opts for a moody, gritty and, you guessed it, darker style. And fair enough, as this is only following the tone of the books, which undeniably grow darker as the story of 'the boy who lived' draws to a conclusion.
But if you start The Deathly Hallows Part 1 expecting a big fantasy epic you'll most probably be disappointed. With the adaptation of the book spread over approximately five hours (this instalment clocks in at 150 minutes), scriptwriter Steve Kloves for once doesn't have to rush the necessary talky explanatory scenes that have in the past muddled non-fans and enraged purists. So there are many extended periods of talking between Harry, Hermione and Ron - the trio whom we have spent nearly ten years watching and loving.
The Deathly Hallows is the only book in the series which does not have the usual Hogwarts academic-year structure. The film starts off, as usual, in the summer holiday following the previous school year. But there is something very different about the tone of the opening. Instead of the usual jolly Harry Potter theme (which still does subtly reoccur) we are greeted with a moody and menacing score. New composer Alexandre Desplat doesn't quite match the heights he reached with his Twilight: New Moon score last year, but he's certainly an inspired choice and serves up an aptly restrained and darkly melancholic new theme as we see our three main characters prepare for the troubling times ahead. Harry sends his Aunt and Uncle away to safety. Hermione erases her parents' memories and removes traces of her existence from the family photos. Ron stares sullenly into the distance from the doorway of his recently repaired house (it was blown up by Death Eaters in the last film). They all know that they will not be returning the Hogwarts. They will be tracking down the remaining Horcruxes - the multiple parts of Voldemort's soul that he scattered across the world. Destroying all of these is the only way the Dark Lord can be killed; or at least that's what the newly deceased Dumbledore claims.
But the change in structure, tone and pace results in a patchy collection of emotional scenes (mostly focusing on the strains on the trio's friendship as they travel across Britain) and typically excellent set pieces. Harry, Ron and Hermione are constantly under threat as they begin the first part of their treasure hunt for the missing Horcruxes, especially since the Ministry for Magic has been taken over by Voldemort's henchmen. These include the poisonous Professor Umbridge (marking the welcome return of Imelda Staunton), who oversees the rounding up of magic folk, subjecting them to a Nazi-esque regime where they have to prove a clear line of magical blood in their family or risk being labelled undesirable 'mudbloods'. It is this cruel discriminatory word which Hermione gets involuntarily tattooed onto her arm during a particularly nasty torture scene towards the end of the film. This is at the hands of Helena Bonham Carter's nightmare-inducing Bellatrix Lestrange; one of the most sadistic of Voldemort's followers.
The film's biggest problem can be found in the lead actors. Although they have improved immensely since 2001's first screen outing, Radcliffe, Grint and Watson don't have the acting ability to make the many talky scenes of very human emotion seem at all believable or compelling. It is very easy to care about the characters through fearing the baddies that surround them, but when they open their mouths and are allowed to really sink into their roles they somehow lose their credibility.
This makes for an occasionally mind-numbingly dull 150 minutes of cinema. Although the word 'cinema' is a little too grand for this offering, as The Deathly Hallows Part 1 feels at times more like a very long made-for-TV drama with some high production values. Kloves's script also sticks slavishly to the book (in my view probably the weakest novel in the series), although does allow some room for a rather touching moment between Harry and Hermione. Dispirited, tired and frightened, they try to rekindle some sense of joy by dancing to music on the radio. It's a scene that could have fallen flat on its face, but somehow it works and adds a more sensitive layer to an otherwise bland and drawn-out adventure story.
One can only hope that the final part, set to hit cinemas in the summer of 2011, will rekindle some of the magic and put this enormous beast of a franchise to bed. It's been a fun ride, but I fear weariness may be found more readily than thrills as the story of Mr Potter limps and stumbles to a close.
Wesley Snipes is a really fun actor.. more than that he's a really fun performer to watch. I'm a big fan. Demolition Man was one of the best action films of the 90s and he was perfect in the role of Simon Phoenix a defrosted bad guy looking to get his revenge on Sly Stallone's Demolition Man. The Blade franchise was all sorts of fun, swords, vampires, guns, what more could you want? Ace. Snipes' finest hour? It's got to be as street wise basketball player Sydney in White Men Can't Jump alongside Woody Harrelson. A perfect film if ever there was one. And if more proof were needed he is also a highly skilled martial artist and also proved his acting chops in films such as Mo' Better Blues and Jungle Fever. Okay so there is the odd turkey on Snipes resume but that's to be expected of any actor. They can't all be winners can they?
But Snipes has been in trouble of late for alleged tax evasion and now he's paying the bills with some straight to DVD release junk. Game of Death happens to be one of them. It's a shame and I really hope he can sort out his problems and get back to some great acting soon in some better roles.
Snipes plays Agent Marcus, an undercover operative who specialises in getting up close and personal with his targets before taking them out. And by that I mean he's a trained, hired killer, not that he takes them out to restaurants to wine and dine them.
Marcus' right hand man is Zander (Gary Daniels). Also on his team is Floria (Zoe Bell). But on his next big job - to get close to arms dealer Mr Smith (Robert Davi) and then dispatch him - his colleagues decide to turn against him and take his share. Well naturally any character played by Snipes is going to have none of this sort of behaviour and an all out fight begins. If this all sounds good then I'm doing it a disservice. It's really all rather boring to be honest. I didn't want it to be. I wanted it to be a kick-ass film, but it's not. It's dull and Daniel and Bell are both terrible in their roles. Wooden and uninspired.
What makes the film unbearable however is the awful editing and direction. It's really annoying Director Giorgio Serafini and Editors Kevin Budzynski and Todd Ramsay appear to have gone a little bit mad. Every now and then the otherwise pin-sharp, beautiful Blu-ray image goes all blurred, or horribly grainy, or turns to black and white for no reason whatsoever. There are numerous needless pieces of camera movement like swish-pans and ultra zooms. It's enough to make you feel physically ill.
Game of Death is a pretty disappointing and is pretty frustrating as well. It did have some potential to be good but there's not enough tension or momentum, or for that matter sensible plotting or a logical script.
It's easy to assume a great deal about The Ghost. Clearly a political thriller, dripping with gravitas while poking a sharp stick at Tony Blair -played by a suave ex-Bond no less- batting away accusations of war crimes. Obvious isn't it?
Actually, not at all. Ewan McGregor plays 'The Ghost', a writer hired to complete an ex-Prime Minister's autobiography after the previous ghost was tragically killed. In an early scene (almost stolen by a cheeky James Belushi cameo) he claims that he is the ideal writer precisely because he knows nothing about politics and that's the ideal viewer too, because this film isn't directly interested in them either. And thank goodness for that, because what we have is a frothy, exciting thriller with an eccentric sense of British humour and great dialogue that is easy to underestimate.
The actual plot is a classic Film Noir, shot through with paranoia and Hitchcockian wit. The script, adapted by Robert Harris from his novel with director Roman Polanski, has an easy charm, and yet crackles with tension. McGregor disappointed me at first, as he has abandoned his own Scottish accent for a London one, but I soon warmed to the choice, especially as his delivery hints at Marlowe ironic weariness. Inspired by money more than honour, a hint of a love for alcohol, a touch of casual flirting with both 'Femme Fatales' and we have our world weary detective reborn as the reluctant ghost writer. The isolated island with strange characters, his inappropriate behaviour with certain women, his visit to a mysterious Professor and more, only add to the spell. It certainly resembles little of political thrillers such as All The Presidents Men or even actioners like Patriot Games at the other end of the scale, and instead, its relationship with the Double Indemnity's of this world make it feel unusually fresh as a very British take on a typical American thriller of the 40s. I told you it was eccentric! But it works brilliantly well.
The two ladies in the film, Kim Cattrall as Brosnan's assistant and Olivia Williams as his wife and probably the real political power, are both excellent, especially Williams ("for God's sake, if we come across a terrorist, I'll text you!", she yells at a security guard who won't leave her alone) though Cattrall impresses by finding a balance between intelligent, sultry and dizzy as her part demands. And Pierce Brosnan was another surprise because he represented my biggest reason to ignore this film and I'm happy to say how absolutely wrong I was.
You can't entirely avoid the story's barbed relevance and the trailer made it seem obvious as to be clunky, and Brosnan's grinning assured confidence had to be the biggest clunk of all. But this is not a Blair biopic. Brosnan affects an awkwardness bordering on stupidity that is both very funny and makes him unpredictably dangerous, yet distances him from being an impression. He balances the character perfectly when he could have phoned in a Bond clone and as such, this is one of his best roles. There is one moment where he disembarks from a plane and at the top of the steps, he pauses, statesman-like, yet briefly confused as to where he might be! You could say he is playing a fool who in turn is playing a part himself. Of course, your opinion of Blair might mean I just strengthened the idea this is a sharp satire...
However, the eccentricity of choosing to use a Noir setup, naturally undoes any satire and this is very important because the film can exist on its own terms. It's like the film is happy to make Tony Blair sweat, but just as quick to nudge him in the ribs and yell "gotcha!". Blair's situation informs the film rather than becomes what it is about. Still, a sequence with the protesters including the grieving father of a solder is treated with enough respect to be substantial.
The irreverence and lightness of touch in the cast is Polanski's doing and it follows through in his direction, accompanied by a wonderfully unusual score from Alexandre Desplat (Fantastic Mr Fox, and BAFTA winner for The Kings Speech). It's a meticulous film, with a melancholic Autumnal air and stunning details in the tight setups, but it's always fun; little things like McGregor's awkwardness as he clambers into a car with a large case, or the way his honesty sometimes gets the better of him contrary to a regular thriller hero, consistently grounds the film. The behaviour of the staff, from the relaxed security guards to the poor caretaker trying to fill his barrow with twigs in the wind, is very funny, yet still feels designed for a purpose, while the tightly controlled manuscript almost becomes a Maltese Falcon type object!
Like a proper Noir, the story is serious and exciting and Polanski executes a couple of action beats perfectly. It just never forgets to be fun and the very final moments underline that dual nature beautifully. I enjoyed it immensely and look forward to seeing it again.
Human Resources, the first feature length film from Laurent Cantet, is a film more akin to a British tradition of social-realism than the cinematic traditions from the directors native France, and with its concerns for how political decisions impact upon the everyday lives of ordinary people it may well be likened to the work of Ken Loach; but by not being so overtly polemical as some of Loach's latter work, Cantet has created a film far more affecting in the human drama he presents.
The premise of Cantet's film, like a number of Ken Loach films, attaches itself to a real and, at the time, current political change affecting the working-class: ahead of the controversial introduction of the 35-hour working week - the rationale of which, besides enhancing the quality of French life by creating more leisure time, was to reduce unemployment by lowering the number of hours each person could work and thereby requiring firms to hire more employees in a division of labour - Franck, a young college undergraduate played by Jalil Lespert, returns from studying in Paris to the humble town of his upbringing to undertake an internship in the Human Resources department at the factory where his father has been employed for the past three decades in the same monotonous job on the factory floor.
Franck, full with youthful idealism, an education equal to the management and a loyalty to his working-class upbringing, is convinced that he can bridge the differences which have arisen between the management and the workers over the new legislation regarding working hours; and in earnest, and with tireless enthusiasm, he approaches the task determined to prove successful. It is only when he discovers that his efforts are being manipulated by the management to serve their duplicitous plan to restructure the company and fire several of the workers, Franck's father included, that he begins to realise that the reality of the world does not fit easily with his ideals.
The soul of the film, however, lies beyond this premise in the very real and very human drama of the relationship between Franck and his father, and rightfully this relationship becomes the main focus of the film because it is here, in the conflict between generations, the conflict that arises from a son who has received a higher education than his parents, an education which gives the son a higher ambition and a wider perspective on the way society runs, that the film becomes compelling and at times truly poignant.
It's the films sense of authenticity which drives much of its impact on the viewer, and Cantet serves the realism of the film with an aesthetic that makes it feel somewhat documentary-like. Among the cast, only Jalil Lespert is a professional actor; the rest of the cast is comprised of people from the area in which the film was shot and there's an impression, which further serves the sense of authenticity, that the lives of the characters do not depart too far from the real lives of the people that play them.
None, however, are played with more nuance and vulnerability than Jean-Claude Vallod in the role of Franck's father, and who, in his real life much like the life of his character, was a factory worker from the age of fourteen. The vulnerability he portrays is never more evident than in the confrontation which ensues between father and son towards the end of the film, when Franck - seemingly driven to the end of his tether with his frustrations and his unrealised ambitions - furiously airs some long-repressed thoughts about his father, about the subservient life he perceives his father to lead without any desire to fight the injustices done against him, and Vallod's restrained reaction is at once believable and moving. A professional actor, who has spent his life in the profession, could not have played it any better.
In Human Resources Laurent Cantet has created an affecting and thought-provoking film; and by presenting the differences and conflicts, whether they be the wider political and class divisions, or the more intimate and personal divisions between a father and a son, with unfailing objectivity, his film becomes all the more affecting. We care about these characters because we can believe they are real people, neither faultlessly infallible nor entirely fallible beyond redemption; each are simply trying to do the best they can in the way they think best. But life, in all its complexity, can be as difficult as it can be unfair, and Laurent Cantet doesn't attempt to flatter the viewer by deceiving us of this very real truth.
Masterful BBC satire chronicling the rise to power of one Francis Urquhart, chief Tory whip and Machiavellian cad who wreaks havoc after being passed up for promotion in the cabinet reshuffle. Written in 1990 by Tory MP Michael Dobbs (advisor to Margaret Thatcher and Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party). 'House Of Cards' is the first, and finest, in the Urquhart trilogy, with the late Ian Richardson making the character his own and, to some extent, cleverly subverting Dobb's creation.
Set after the ignominious fall of Thatcher; "...nothing lasts forever" says Urquhart with a smirk, 'House Of Cards' is like 'Yes, Prime Minister' on crack and gleefully displays its cutthroat sentiments like a butcher might lay out his best knives and cleavers. Ian Richardson draws on Richard III and makes Francis Urquhart (its' no coincidence his initials are F.U.) an interesting villain to watch. Susannah Harker ('Pride & Prejudice') is also on fine form as an investigative journalist who gets too close to the conspiracy: "Scandalous? You might think so, I couldn't possibly comment."
Brilliant, tense, gripping throughout. You will probably wonder how this film, with just a single actor, shot entirely from inside the coffin, can hold your attention. Well it does - a real, slick, edge of your seat thriller. And for anyone who has ever had the misery of repeatedly put on hold on by automatic telephone answering services or call centres - this one's for you too! Undoubtedly my top cinema experience of 2010.
Ryan Reynolds buried in coffin underground - What would you do? Superb thriller.
If you like your humour purile and crude, you will love this dvd. I loved the show and bought this as soon as it was released. DK is a star. I cant rate this highly enough. BALAMORY!!!
uk students at their hilarious best
Tim Blake Nelson writes, directs and stars in this film about a pair of identical twins who are leading very different lives but are brought together again unexpectedly and tossed into a whirlwind of trouble.
Edward Norton (never better than when he was in films like Fight Club and Death To Smoochy) takes the central roles as identical twins Bill and Brady Kincaid. Bill is a well respected Ivy League professor of classical philosophy who is informed of his brother's murder (by crossbow) and has to return to his home town in Oklahoma for the funeral. However when he gets there he finds that his brother Brady (a two-bit criminal drug dealer is very much alive and actually wants Bill to stand in for him (taking a trip to visit their mother, played by Susan Sarandon (Alfie)) as his 'alibi' while he goes off on a revenge mission against a local drug lord (played by Richard Dreyfuss (Phenomenon).
It's a crazy scheme, that's most likely going to go wrong. Bill doesn't want to do it but Brady has always had a certain way of persuading his brother to do things he doesn't necessarily want to do. Keri Russell (Waitress) pops up as Janet, a childhood friend of Bill's and turns into his love interest, while Tim Blake Nelson (so wonderful in O' Brother Where Art Thou?) as Rick Bolger, Brady's right hand man.
The film itself is well written if a little odd at time and adequately directed. But what exactly lured Edward Norton into the lead roles of this film? It seems a bit small fry for him. That said Norton doesn't seem to have been on the big screen much, if at all, since the rather ill-fated (yet impressive) reboot of The Hulk. So maybe he was looking for something small and kind of Indie before heading back to the big time with another Hollywood blockbuster. Still is it just me or has his entire career seemed to go downhill since Fight Club? I mean don't get me wrong, I think he is a fantastic actor, but does he just make bad choices? He's been in some terrible films and also taken some terrible roles? Apparently some of it (appearing in The Italian Job for instance) was to do with contractual obligations but it can't all be stuff that he's being forced to do. What's his excuse for spending an entire film behind a mask in Kingdom of Heaven which was a rubbish film anyway? Norton started his career with amazing performances in the likes of American History X and Rounders. Keeping the Faith was funny and Red Dragon was OK as far as sequels / remakes go but films such as The Painted Veil and The Illusionist were a bit dull to say the least. Mind you he did put in a cracking performance in Down In The Valley.
Anyway Leaves of Grass is so, so in terms of a film as a whole, and although it is fun seeing Norton take on two roles it's not as impressive as Nicolas Cage's twin brothers performance in Adaptation. The story is a bit weak in places, relying a little too heavily on co-incidence. At the end of the film you might be left feeling that the whole 105 minutes was basically about putting a Norton into two roles and seeing what he could do. He does well but not quite well enough to make this film more than an average watch, which is probably why it's gone straight to DVD, which is a real shame.
Tensions abound between Hindus and Muslims in India in this story of the conflict between the two communities, not in the least helped by a corrupt police force. Amitabh Bachchan plays a hard-nosed police officer who is only interested in justice, rather than solely serving the interests of his own (Hindu) community. This is seemingly untrue at first, but he eventually rises above his corrupt superiors to fight for what he believes to be right. A particularly brutal incident forms the turning point for him; the scene that follows, in which he recounts to his wife what he has just witnessed, is possibly the most emotive moment of the film and shows him to be the great actor that he so often is. At a time when Bollywood's most accomplished actor's star has lost some of its shine due to a few too many poor films, it is great to see him doing what he does best and what he is so respected for. Kareena Kapoor drops her comedy hat and puts in an under-stated and emotional performance. Overall, this is a thought-provoking, and at times frustrating film to watch, but with great performances from the main cast, it's definitely worth a look.
The premise of this film is becoming rather familiar now - people are unexpectedly terrorised by a group of young people, turning a normal situation into a living nightmare. However, few of these films pack as hard a punch as Eden Lake does. As soon as the protagonist confronts the group of teenagers you just know that he will regret this bold decision, and what should have ended with the group simply sneering at and ignoring the guy who is trying to intrude on their fun, becomes anything but that. What follows is scene after scene of harshness and brutality, keeping you on the edge of your seat, and wishing that what is happening wouldn't. Some of the scenes are rather hard to watch, and make you think whether this could happen in real life. This film looks at the recent wave of teenage violence now becoming more and more prevalent in the news, and unfortunately a lot of us have read about some of the things that are depicted here. After seeing this, some people will likely never even look in the direction of a teenage 'gang' again, but then maybe this is a bit of an exaggerated outlook and the film is simply employing scare tactics for effectiveness, which, incidentally, it achieves perfectly. The girlfriend (the other victim) is a schoolteacher by profession, but what she becomes by the end is unthinkable for anybody working with children. The question is: can she be blamed? This and lots of other questions are thrown into the arena. The last 5 minutes raise plenty of questions too. By choosing to give a little respite, maybe even some satisfaction to some viewers, and then snatching this back completely, the director has made a film that will stay with you for a good while after the credits.
This product is well worth the money it us perfect for teens and adults exciting drama in each episode it is a prgoramme where you won't e able to stop playing it!!!!
Amazing film. Visually stunning and hard hitting. It might not be a film you can 'like' or watch a million times, but it's certainly one to remember.
Epic masterpiece about the life and times of Hajji Malik Al-Shabazz a.k.a. Malcolm X. Having worked together on the underrated 'Mo Better Blues' (1990) actor Denzel Washington and director Spike Lee ('Do The Right Thing') joined forces once again to adapt Al Shabazz and Alex Haley's 'The Autobiography of Malcolm X'. The book recounts in great detail the extraordinary life of Hajji Malik Al Shabazz: Born Malcolm Little in an America riven with racial hatred; the young boy witnesses the murder of his father by 'The Ku-Klux-Klan', goes off the rails into a life of crime, is imprisoned, converts to Islam and rises to become an unparalleled force in the civil rights movement.
Denzel Washington gives the performance of his life as Malcolm X; every aspect of his character is illuminated without fear or favor. And we get an incredible insight into the man's spiritual and intellectual journey from victim to hoodlum to eloquent visionary and inspirational leader. The supporting cast are also on excellent form; Angela Basset is superb as Betty Shabazz (movie trivia fans may be interested to know that she went onto reprise the role some years later in the movie 'Panther') whilst Albert Baines, Delroy Lindo and Al Freeman Jr. also give subtle and affecting performances.
'Malcolm X' is a modern classic, arguably Washington's finest hour as an actor (or at least on a par with his role as Steve Biko in 'Cry Freedom') and without question, the best film of Lee's directorial career. A must have for anyone whose serious about film.
This site uses cookies.
More details in our privacy policy